An unprecedented incident occurred on the 11th when the presiding judge in the 'Seongnam FC Sponsorship Fund Suspicion' case ordered the lead prosecutor who appeared in court to leave the courtroom. The court ruled that a prosecutor belonging to a different prosecution office than the jurisdictional one, who was appointed as a 'one-day acting prosecutor' for each trial date, was violating the Prosecutors' Office Act. It is highly unusual for the presiding judge to take such a measure by questioning the prosecutor's acting duties and ordering removal from the courtroom.
In response, the prosecution side collectively protested by having not only the prosecutor who was ordered to leave but also four other prosecutors participating in the trial leave the courtroom together. They then countered by filing a motion to disqualify the court, citing concerns of 'potential unfair trial.' The trial on that day ended in disruption.
On the 11th, during the trial held at the Suwon District Court Seongnam Branch, 1st Criminal Division (Chief Judge Heo Yong-gu), involving seven defendants including former executives of Doosan Construction and Naver, former Seongnam city officials, and a former Seongnam FC representative related to the Seongnam FC suspicion case on charges of bribery and bribery offering, the presiding judge stated, "Prosecutor A, who belongs to the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, has been appointed as an acting prosecutor at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office under the Prosecutor General's name on a monthly basis since September last year, and for each trial of the 'Seongnam FC suspicion' case prosecuted at the Suwon District Court Seongnam Branch, has been appointed as a 'one-day acting prosecutor' at the Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office and participated in the trial. This dual acting appointment violates Article 5 of the Prosecutors' Office Act," and immediately ordered Prosecutor A to leave the courtroom.
The court explained, "Article 34, Paragraph 1 of the Prosecutors' Office Act stipulates that the appointment and assignment of prosecutors are made by the President upon the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, so the authority over prosecutor personnel lies with the President," adding, "The Prosecutor General who appointed Prosecutor A as an acting prosecutor does not have personnel authority over prosecutors."
In the previous trial, the court also raised issues with the involvement of such a 'one-day acting' prosecutor in the trial, but the prosecution submitted a written opinion on the 21st of last month arguing that "the maintenance of prosecution and trial performance are stipulated in Article 5 (Jurisdiction of Prosecutors) of the Prosecutors' Office Act and Article 4 (Acting Duties) of the Prosecutors' Work Rules, so it is lawful for a prosecutor from another office to be appointed as an acting prosecutor and perform trial duties."
However, on this day, the court judged, "Even if dual acting appointments are legally possible, the conditions must be interpreted and applied strictly," and added, "If, as the prosecution claims, the volume of evidence in this case is vast and the matter complex, a prosecutor handling the case for a long period would be necessary, but a one-day acting appointment appears to be a shortcut and is very inappropriate." Furthermore, the court pointed out, "Prosecutor A, after being appointed as acting prosecutor at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, has been handling trial duties for five cases at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, and Suwon District Prosecutors' Office Seongnam Branch, which seems to be an abuse of Article 4 (Acting Duties) of the Prosecutors' Work Rules that stipulates 'prosecutors of the jurisdictional prosecution offices may act on behalf of each other,' and if a practice is illegal, it cannot be tolerated."
Prosecutor A was the investigating prosecutor for the Seongnam FC sponsorship fund suspicion case, which was indicted by the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office Seongnam Branch in September 2022. Currently, his original office is the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, but since September last year, he has been working at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office as an acting prosecutor and has participated in the trial by receiving a one-day acting prosecutor appointment from the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office Seongnam Branch for each trial date. He immediately protested, stating, "This is an abuse of the court's control over litigation and a clear arbitrary interpretation that obstructs the progress of the prosecution." After requesting a recess from the court, which was denied, he left the courtroom along with other prosecutors participating in the trial. Due to the disruption of the trial, the next trial date was postponed to the 25th.
This case involves allegations that Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was the owner of Seongnam FC during his tenure as mayor of Seongnam, conspired with city officials to attract sponsorship funds totaling over 13 billion won from companies such as Doosan Construction and Naver between 2016 and 2018, and that these companies received conveniences such as building permits and land use changes in return.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
